LOCAL BUTTER MARKET.

Waikato Times, Volume 112, Issue 18808, 2 December 1932, Page 9

LOCAL BUTTER MARKET.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —Having regard to the recent decision of the banks, and incidentally the Government’s rejection of the idea of raising the rate of exchange to assist the primary producers, we must find some other medium to raise the prices of our produce. Mr Sinclair’s proposals as set out in your columns of November 19, last relating to a scheme for the effectual stabilisation of butter prices on the local market, deserves the urgent and co-operative attention of all producers and consumers alike. For years past the dairy farmers of New Zealand have been made the chopping block on which some distributing merchants have smashed the retail prices of butter and cheese, until in several instances butler was retailed below the wholesale price. When the market prices of our products were 100 per cent, higher than the current prices we could afford to overlook this unfair selling competition, but now that butter lias dropped to the lowest price on record, and the cost of production has not fallen in proportion, we must awake as a body ol' farmers to the alarming slate of affairs and make strenuous efforts to unite and organise until the prices of our produce are stabilised on the local markets. The basis of competition for the local market price could be the f.o.b. parity price of exported bulk butter, plus, say, a premium of 2d or more per lb. It is a well-established truth amongst tradesmen and others that when the farmer is getting a price sufllcient to enable him to obtain a spending surplus business and everything will brighten up. The lack of these conditions is partly the cause of our present trouble. Generally Speaking, our butter consumers would no doubt be prepared to pay a little more if the ultimate result meant that they would have more money to spend, due to the bettor conditions of trade and employment obtaining. The writer has not discussed these phases with Mr Sinclair, but no doubt tie could further prove his statement that a premium of 2d per lb would yield approximately £200,000 annually io be distributed to the industry, f do not wish to take up valuable space repeating all the details of the plan ! as outlined by Mr Sinclair, but having regard to the well-known fact that he has capably directed some of the I largest, dairy companies in New Zea- | land, and has been, and still is, in constant touch with both the manufacturing and marketing ends of our dairy produce, I suggest that all our dairy farmers should utilise Ibis ! golden opportunity by requesting Mr i Sinclair to elaborate his scheme, and | if passible deliver addresses in the I main centres and form committees to | carry out the plan that will, when j dualised, give the Dairy Produce j Hoard power In tlx Die price of butter lon the New Zealand local markets. Deferring to our exported butter. I which it is estimated will not ho far I short of 100,0110 tons by the end of j the present season (unless we have i | dry autumn), would it. not lie possible It i instiluli' a scheme similar in prini ciple to lilt 1 Paterson plan now operlaling so successfully in Australia, so i Di.it our competitors liter > arc enabled ! t.o sell below our prices in I’rilain and ’ also capture the markets in Die Hast and still show much bolter net rct iurns to the producer? in conclusion, may 1 say iL is high ! lime we producers woke up in relation | to the marketing end of our industry.

We have learned the lesson well enough now to be up at work with the lark and to finish when the owls ap- . pear, but now we are beginning to realise that we are only working entirely lor the other well-to-do chap, j —1 am, etc., PRODUCER. Hamilton, November 30, 1932.